Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2470 OF 2025
Mr. Aditya Avinash Sood, Age about 53 years, Occupation : Business, Residing at : Bungalow No.47-B, Sopan Baug Society, B.T. Kavade Road, Ghorpadi, Pune.
(At present Yerwada Jail) …Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through I.O. Yerwada Police Station, Pune)
…Respondent
Mr. Arunkumar Devnath Singh
Age about 47 years, Occupation : Business, Residing at : A-102, Lunkad Sky, Belvedar Society, Vimannagar, Pune …Applicant vs.
(Through I.O. Yerwada Police Station, Pune) …Respondent
Mr. Vishal SurendraKumar Agarwal
Age 50 years, Occ. Business, having address at Bungalow No.01, Bramha Sun City, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune – 411 014. …Applicant vs.
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2733 OF 2025
Suresh Kumar Koshta, (Father of deceased victim Ashwini Koshta) ...Intervenor
In the matter between :-
Mr. Vishal SurendraKumar Agarwal
Age 50 years, Occ. Business, having address at Bungalow No.01, Bramha Sun City, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune – 411 014. …Applicant vs.
Through Assistant Police Commissioner, Crime Branch City, Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Ashish Satish Mittal
Age about : 37 years, Occupation : Business, Residing at : C-301, Sky Belvedere, Lohegaon – Pune. ...Applicant vs.
(Through PI Yerwada Police Station, Dist. Pune) ...Respondents
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2850 OF 2025
Suresh Kumar Koshta, (Father of deceased victim Ashwini Koshta)
Age : 62, Occupation : Retired, R/at 141, Sakar Hills, Sainik Society, Shakti Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ...Intervenor
In the matter between :-
Mr. Ashish Satish Mittal
Age about : 37 years, Occupation : Business, Residing at : C-301, Sky Belvedere, Lohegaon – Pune. ...Applicant vs.
(Through PI Yerwada Police Station, Dist. Pune) ...Respondents
1) Ashpak Basha Makandar
Age : 27 years, Occ.-
R/o. Subhashnagar, In front of Business
Bay, Khadki, Yerwada, Pune
2) Amar Santosh Gaikwad, Age : 36 years, Occ.-, R/o. S.No.31, Shivshakti Mandal, Chaudharinagar, Dhanori, Pune, (Both at present Yerwada Central Prison, Pune) …Applicants vs.
(At the instance of the P.I. -
Yerwada Police Station, Dist. Pune) …Respondent
Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware,
Age – 38 years, Occupation – Doctor, Residing at : B-6 Gita Society, Camp _ Pune
(Currently in Yerwada Central Prison) …Applicant vs.
(At the instance of Yerwada Police Station) …Respondent
Shrihari Bhimrao Halnor
Age : 35 years, Occ – Service, R/o.- 948/1, Alamprabhu Niwas, Alamprabhu Road, Laxminagar, Tal. Bhum, Dist. Dharashiv. …Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Abid Mulani a/w. Mr. Ashish P. Agarkar, Mr. Raj Mulani, Ms. Harshada
Parbhane, Mr. Adesh Agarkar, Mr. Mandar Shinde and Ms. Shraddha
Kulkarni for the Applicant in BA/2470/2025 and BA/2482/2025.
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay and
Ms. Dhvani Shah for the Applicant in BA/2850/2025.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant Patil, Mr. Swapnil
Ambure, Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Ms. Nida Khan and Mr. Gagandeep
Singh for the Applicant in BA/2733/2025.
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Ranjit Ade, Mr. Rajendra Nemane, Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Anant Charkhe and
Mr. Nilesh Rathod for the Applicant in BA/3751/2024.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Keral Mehta and Mr. Yash Naik i/b.
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Applicant in BA/3809/2024.
Mr. Jaydeep Mane (through VC) a/w. Ms. Ishan Paradkar, Mr. Yash
Fadtare and Mr. Malhar Kadam for the Applicant in BA/5173/2024.
Mr. Shishir Hiray, Special PP a/w. Mr. Shubham Joshi, Mr. Sanjay Kokane, Mr. Tanveer Khan and Ms. Supriya Kak, APPs for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Ankit Patil a/w. Mr. Yash Shrivas and Ms. Iraa Dube Patil i/b.
Jay and Co. for the Intervenor in BA/2850/2025, BA/2733/2025, BA/3751/2024 and BA/3809/2024.
Mr. Vijay Kumbhar, ACP (Crime) and Mr. Santosh Dolas, ASI, present.
JUDGMENT
1. Denial of bail by the trial Court leads the Applicants to file these Applications seeking their release on bail in Special Case (ACB) No.917/2024 arising out of C.R.No.306/2024 registered with Yerwada Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) and Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181, 199 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”).
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the respective Applicant, Mr. Hiray, the learned Special PP for the Respondent – State and Mr. Ankit Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor. Perused the Applications, the Affidavit-in-reply and the relevant documents. 16th
3. The prosecution story is that, applicant Vishal is father of “V” (“CCL”). On 19/05/2024, at about 2.00 AM, said CCL, his friends Aayush Sood, Naman Singh and Adi Shaikh were returning from a party in a Porshe car bearing no RTO registered number plate. The CCL was driving the car and his private driver namely Gangadhar had occupied the seat besides the CCL. The CCL’s three friends were occupied on the rear the seat. At about 2.10 AM, when the car arrived near landmark society of Kalyani Nagar, on Airport road, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-14-CQ-3622 was proceeding ahead of the car. Suddenly, the car dashed that motorcycle from its behind. As a result, the motorcycle rider Anis Awadhiya and his pillion Ashwini Koshta sustained grievous injuries and immediately, succumbed to their injuries. As alleged, just before the accident, the CCL and his three friends with others had enjoyed a party consuming alcohol. Therefore, at the time of this accident, the CCL was under the influence of alcohol. However, he drove the car at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner despite he was cautioned not to drive the car in the drunken state and in such a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, informant Aquib Mulla filed a Report pursuant to which the aforesaid F.I.R came to be registered under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC and 184, 119 and 177 of the MV Act. Immediately, the police visited the spot and commenced investigation. The eyewitnesses to the accident and those who had apprehended the CCL and his friends at the spot, informed the police that the CCL and his friends were drunk and were under the influence of alcohol. His friend Adi Shaikh had fled away from the spot. Therefore, the police referred the CCL, Aayush Sood and Naman Singh for medical examination to the Sassoon Hospital. The medical examination was in the nature of clinical examination, taking blood sample etc. of the CCL and his two friends. 16th It is alleged that, meanwhile, all the applicants alongwith their coaccused namely Atul Ghatkambale and Shivani Agarwal, who is mother of the CCL, hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause disappearance of the evidence, in particular, to record ‘Nil alcohol’ report of the clinical examination and changing the blood sample of the CCL, Naman Singh and Aayush Sood with the blood sample of Shivani Agarwal, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood respectively, for certain bribe amount to be given to and accepted by the Applicants Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware. Dr. Halnor was responsible to medically examine the CCL and his friends and take their blood samples. Dr. Taware involved in the conspiracy to get that work done through Dr. Halnor. Co-accused Atul Ghatkambale would help him in the crime, for which applicants Amar Gaikwad and Ashpak Makandar would act as the middlemen. Their ultimate object was to secure an escape to the three boys, mainly the CCL, from the clutches of law. This plan of the accused persons worked as conspired by them. However, the police took fresh blood sample of the CCL. The said samples were sent to the RFSL for CA purpose. The Reports of the CA revealed the change of the blood samples. Meanwhile, the DNA samples of the accused concerned were taken. The net result of the investigation was that, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, the accused Shivani, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood replaced the blood sample as noted above. For performance of the said illegal activity various documents were forged. Dr. Halnor accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.3,00,000/-from the accused Shivani and her husband Applicant Vishal through the co-applicants Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad. Dr. Halnor gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to co-accused Atul Ghatkambale for his help in the said act. It is also revealed that the Applicant Arunkumar Singh gave Rs.2,00,000/- to Applicant Ashish Mittal to provide his blood sample to swap with the blood sample of the former’s minor son namely Naman Singh. 16th The investigation revealed the complicity of the applicants and their coaccused. All the applicants came to be arrested from time to time. The bribe amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was seized which Dr. Halnor had kept in the custody of one medical student. An amount of Rs.50,000/- came to be recovered from accused Atul Ghatkambale. On completion of investigation, initially, charge-sheet came to be filed against 7 accused persons and it got registered as ‘Special case (ACB) No. 917/2024’. On further investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the remaining accused.
4. The common grounds which have been pressed in these Applications for bail and emphasized during hearing of the Applications are that: i) the Applicants are innocent; ii) the evidence as to demand, giving and accepting of the bribe amount is very doubtful; iii) except the charge of the offence of Sections 201, no other alleged offence is made out against the Applicants; iv) the alleged offences of Sections 201, 213 and 214 are bailable; v) investigation is over and further detention of the applicants in jail will not serve any purpose; vi) the trial would take several years for it logical conclusion; vii) the presumption of innocence is in favour of the Applicants; viii) in these circumstances detention of the applicants in jail till conclusion of the trial will be a punishment without proving them guilty of the charge; ix) this is first offence of the Applicants; x) the Applicants are permanent resident of the given address; xi) the Applicants are not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence; xii) and that; ‘Bail is the rule and Jail is the exception’ is the settled position of law.
5. The Applicant/case specific submissions are as under:a) Mr. Abid Mulani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in BA/2470/2025 and BA/2482/2025 submitted that, initially, there 16th were no allegations that these Applicants were involved in the crime. Applicant Aditya Sood gave his blood sample only because the police and the hospital authority had told that one of the parents should give his blood sample. The Applicant Aditya Sood had no intention to commit this offence. He submitted that Applicant Arunkumar Singh is made an accused on the allegations that, to shield his minor son Naman from this offence, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to Applicant Ashish Mittal to provide his blood sample to swap with the blood sample of his son Naman. However, there are long standing business relations between Applicants Arunkumar Singh and Ashish Mittal. As such, the financial transaction relied upon by the prosecution against this Applicant were in fact the routine business dealing between the two. Moreover, said Naman is not an accused in the case but a witnesses. Both these Applicants are not connected to the conspiracy of swapping the blood sample of the CCL with the blood sample of accused Shivani, for the bribe money. Thus, both these Applicants are innocent. However, they have been falsely implicated in this crime. As such, these Applicants are entitled for bail. To support his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision in Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 581, therein it is held that charge of the offence of forgery cannot be imposed against a person who is not the maker of false document in question. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As clarified in Explanation – 2 of Section 464 IPC, for constituting the offence of Section 464, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is maker of the same, otherwise the accused is 16th not liable for the offence of forgery. Another decision he cited is Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, therein 17 person were booked for the scam. Statement of the witnesses were running into several hundred pages. Other documentary evidence was voluminous. There was no serious apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence and absconding of the accused if released on bail. Therefore, it is held that, in such a case the balance approach is to grant conditional bail. b) Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in BA/3809/2024 submitted that, between 02/05/2024 to 20/05/2024, said Applicant Dr. Taware was on long leave and he was not physically present in the Sassoon Hospital. There is material inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses. The Applicant has not participated in any of the acts of creating false documents, forgery and swapping of the blood samples for the bribe money, alleged committed in the hospital. There is no allegation of either demanding or accepting the bribe. In the absence of relevant transcriptions, the CDRs on record cannot be used to presume that the this Applicant’s telephonic conversation was related to causing disappearance of the evidence on accepting the bribe. As such, the offences punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the offences of PC Act have no application against the Applicant. In the wake of above and considering the material on record, at the most, offences of Sections 201 IPC may be attracted against this Applicant, which is bailable. Therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail with conditions. c) Mr. Ashok Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant in BA/2850/2025 submitted that, as alleged, this 16th Applicant Ashish Mittal provided his blood sample to swap it with the blood sample of Naman, who is son of the Applicant Arunkumar Singh. However, no alcohol is detected in the blood sample of Naman. The CDRs of the mobile phone of this Applicant is not sufficient to presume that he was part of the conspiracy. The blood sample was not properly sealed and handled. There is no reliable chain of keeping the blood sample in a proper custody until it was sent to the FSL for CA purpose. The allegations that this Applicant received Rs.2,00,000/- against providing his blood sample as above, are false and baseless. The Applicant never tried to abscond which indicates his innocence. There is no material to show the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged criminal conspiracy and giving the bribe amount which was allegedly recovered in this case. Therefore, and considering the law in the field, the Applicant may be released on bail. d) Mr. Gupte, the leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants in BA/3751/2024 submitted that these Applicants are not even implicitly connected with the offence of criminal conspiracy for making false documents, forgery and causing disappearance of the evidence against the bribe amount and for that end, they handled the bribe amount. There is no recovery of any incriminating evidence from them. As such, the offences of the criminal conspiracy, forgery of the valuable security and PC Act have no application against these Applicants. e) Mr. Mane, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant in BA/5173/2024 submitted that the evidence as to the alleged criminal conspiracy has not weightage. It is a question of trial as to whether this Applicant has committed the offence of forgery of valuable security or 16th not. The statement of the witnesses as to demand and acceptance of the bribe amount is vague and inconsistent. The evidence as to the telephonic conversation is not helpful to establish the said facts. As such, the offences under the PC Act is not attracted against this Applicant. In the backdrop, maximum, this Applicant can be blamed for the offence of causing disappearance of the evidence which is bailable and does not prescribe a severe punishment. Therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail imposing suitable conditions. f) Mr. Aabad Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant-Vishal in BA/2733/2025 submitted that, initially, the FIR was registered against the CCL under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 & 427 of IPC and the offences under the MV Act. Subsequently, Section 304 IPC came to be added. The unfortunate accident occurred in the night and therefore, the Applicant was completely unaware about the circumstances which led to the accident. He submitted that, the CCL and his mother, who allegedly exchanged her blood sample with the blood sample of the CCL, both are granted bail. The offences is not falling in the category of economic offence. Therefore, no statutory bar for grant of bail like in an offence under the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 is attracted in this case. Even in offences under the PMLA bail is granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of long incarceration where detention of the accused in jail was not required for further investigation and trial would take long time. This case is not an exception to such a case of the PMLA. The entire prosecution evidence is documented. Therefore there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by the Applicant. 16th Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, it is held that if the offence is punishable with life imprisonment or any other lesser sentence and is triable by Magistrate, it cannot be said that Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to consider the bail application. Therefore, even if in the case in hand, the alleged offence of Section 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, since all the alleged offences are triable by the Special Court, there was no hurdle for the said Court to grant bail. Present offence is committed by the Applicant only on account of his concern for his son, the CCL, but, unmindful of the serious consequences. Other crimes registered against the Applicant are allegedly related to his business as a builder, and most of them have been registered only after arraying him as accused in this crime. As such, the Applicant cannot be categorized as a habitual offender. The arrest of the Applicant and his wife Shivani has tarnished the image of their entire family. His business is put to loss. Thus, the crime made them to suffer physically, mentally, economically and socially. Therefore, the Applicant Vishal Agarwal may be released on bail putting conditions as may be deemed necessary. g) The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants have cited following reported cases to substantiate their submissions. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad Vasant Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra 2011(2) Mh.L.J. Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
OnLine Bom Mahesh Joshi vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2025 INSC 1377 16th
Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Dattaram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 22 Re: vs. Nagendra Nath Chakravarti 1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Nittin Johari and anr.
State of Bihar and another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai
Sharad Kumar and Ors. vs. CBI 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5056 Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 Prem Prakash vs. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024) 10 SCC Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra
Vijay Nair vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3597 Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Alnesh Akil Somji vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine Bom Irfan Moiuddeen Saiyyed and Others vs. State of
Rup Bahadur Magar vs. State of West Bengal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4699 16th
6. In reply, Mr. Hiray, the learned Special PP pointed the prosecution evidence with minute detail and submitted that, at the relevant time and place, the CCL drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, he was under the influence of alcohol. All the Applicants were aware of this fact because the witnesses who had apprehended the CCL and his friends at the spot, had so informed to the police investigating the crime. Yet, the medical examination of the CCL and his friends was delayed. Meanwhile, the Applicants designed a conspiracy to cause disappearance of the evidence for illegal gratification. Pursuant to the conspiracy, initially, the Applicant Dr. Halnor issued the medical certificates that the CCL and his friends were ‘not under the influence of alcohol’, although the fact was otherwise. In the next step, the Dr. Halnor with the help of Applicant Atul Ghatkambale exchanged the blood samples of the CCL and his two friends as above to successfully show that the three boys were not drunk and under the influence of alcohol. For this end, false identity details of the boys were written on Medical Certificate, the MLC register and on the stickers to be applied to the blood samples etc. This was done to facilitate the said boys to claim a right that they had neither consumed alcohol nor were under its influence. However, the same act destroyed the legal right of the prosecution agency to claim that the CCL and his friends were under the influence of alcohol, and the said mental and bodily state of the CCL lead to this accident. For this purpose, Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware accepted Rs.3,00,000/- as bribe amount through the Applicants Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad. This story is supported with the CDRs collected during the investigation as it clearly show that the applicants were in frequent contact with one another, even at the odd hours of night. The CCTV footage also strengthens the prosecution case. The CA/DNA reports on records also confirms the conspiracy hatched by the Applicants. As such, there is strong a prima facie case against the Applicants of having committed the alleged offences. 16th The argument on behalf of the Applicants that no offence of Section 467 IPC has been made out in this case, is already dealt with by the trial Court as well as by this Court in ABA No.2564/2024 filed by the Applicant Arunkumar Singh, where, this Court specifically held that looking at the facts of this case, the offence of Section 467 is attracted against the Applicants and rejected the ABA vide Order dated 23/10/2024. This Order is confirmed by the Apex Court when it dismissed the SLP (Crl.) No. 15128/2024 filed by Applicant Arunkumar Singh for bail, assailing the said Order. As such, said question cannot be reopened in this case. Based on the prosecution evidence the case against the CCL and these Applicants cannot be segregated because except the fact that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the car, the other facts are same. Mr. Hiray submitted that although the offence of Section 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life. The Applicants showed no respect to the dead who were young like the CCL. Rather they insulted their death and made mockery of the justice by tampering with and causing disappearance of the prosecution evidence, using corrupt practice and taking in their control the public hospital system, which functions for every citizen. Therefore, the offence is very serious. Mr Hiray submitted that Applicant-Vishal is a financially influential person, which is evident from the record. Applicants Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware were serving in the Sassoon Hospital and very well acquainted with the material witnesses involved in the case. The Applicants Mr. Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood and Arunkumar Singh are well connected with the Applicant Vishal Agarwal. As such there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence at the hands of the Applicants. He submitted that even at the time of taking second blood sample of the CCL and others by Aundh hospital, an attempt was made by the Applicant Vishal Agarwal, his wife Shivani and Ashpak Makandar to cause 16th the taking of the blood samples and swap it in the same manner, thus, tamper with the evidence using the same corrupt practice. However, the Medical Officer on this occasion was vigilant and it foiled their said attempt. Therefore, the trial Court refused to release the Applicants on bail. Accused Shivani is not granted bail on merit but she being a woman. In the backdrop, and considering the societal angle, the Bail Applications may be rejected. To support these submissions, the learned Special PP has relied upon the following reported cases. Daniel Hailey Walcott and another Vs. State AIR 1968 MAD 349 Naveen Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another AIR 2021 SC 1428 State of U. P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1968 SCC OnLine SC 47 State of T.N. Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and Othrs AIR 1999 SC 2640 6.[1] Mr. Ankit Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor has supported the submissions made by the learned Special PP.
7. I have carefully considered these submissions in the light of the material on record collected during the course of investigation, the written submissions made by the parties and the reported cases they have cited.
8. The aforesaid exercise clearly revealed that just before the accident the CCL and his friends had enjoyed alcohol in two hotels. After leaving the last hotel, the CCL sat at the driving seat to drive the car despite refusal by his private driver noticing he was in an inebriated state. The statements of the eyewitnesses and other friends of the CCL also indicate that the CCL and his three friends in the car had consumed alcohol and were under its influence. At the time of the accident, the CCL was driving the car at a speed of 100 kmph and the said motorcycle was running ahead of the car. The car driver, 16th therefore, cautioned the CCL to lower the speed but it was in vain and the CCL continued speeding. As a result, the car dashed the motorcycle from its behind and caused the accident resulting in the death of two innocent.
9. On scrutiny of the material on record, it transpired that, immediately after the accident, the Applicants Vishal, Shivani and other Applicants conspired with applicants Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware through Applicants Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad to change the blood sample with those of accused Shivani, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood for the bribe amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The statements of the witnesses recorded in this regard, are supported with the seizure of Rs.2,50,000/- from one student with whom that money was kept by Dr. Halnor on the say of Dr. Taware. The various CCTV footage and corresponding CDRs of the Applicants’ mobile phone indicate that, around the time of medical examination of the CCL, his two friends and also at the time of handling and accepting the bribe money, the Applicants were in contact with each other, were at the same place and moving around each other. As such, there is substance in the claim of the prosecution that Dr. Halnor gave the ‘NIL alcohol consumption report’ and changed the samples on the say of or at the influence of Dr. Taware but for the bribe money. In this regard the Applicants Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad have actively abetted and supported.
10. Mr. Hiray submitted that after experiencing the blood sampling episode in the Sassoon hospital, the police wanted to take fresh blood sample of the CCL, his parents and Applicants Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal and Arunkumar Singh, from Aundh Government hospital. However, as he submits, there also the parents of the CCL and Applicant Ashpak Makandar tried interfering with the investigation and influencing upon the Medical Officer to take the blood sample of Shivani instead of the CCL by accepting 16th whatever bribe money that he would desire. This submission find support from the statement of the Medical Officer from Aundh hospital.
11. Finally, the CA and the DNA report made it clear that, Dr. Halnor took the blood samples of the Shivani, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood but recorded it to be of the CCL, Naman Singh and Aayush Sood, to show that, the CCL was not drunk and under the influence of alcohol, therefore, the offence of the accident and Section 304 IPC is not made out against the CCL.
12. Looking at the material on record, it is apparent that, Applicant Vishal Agarwal cannot be said to be responsible for the accident because, it occurred behind his back and he was completely unaware of the circumstances in which the CCL occupied the driving seat. Similarly, it appears that, each accused has played different role and at different time. Nevertheless, the collective object of all the Applicants including their co-accused Shivani and Atul Ghatkambale was, to tamper with the evidence by falsification of the Medical Record in the Government hospital. This they wanted to accomplish with the help of their per-meditated conspiracy. In fact, the investigation material including the C.A./D.N.A. reports clearly show that for obtaining the wrong blood samples for the purpose of C.A., completely different method of taking blood samples was adopted, which was only for the bribe amount. This prima facie conclusion is supported by the fact that, even at the stage of taking the fresh blood samples at Aundh hospital, same interference was tried to be made against the Medical Officer there.
13. Much has been argued by the learned Counsel to convince this Court that the act of falsification of the Medical Certificates, entries in the MLC 16th register and details on the labels affixed to the blood samples, would not attract the offence of Section 467 IPC. The same submission was declined on two occasions. Firstly, by the trial Court and secondly, by this Court while dealing with ABA of Applicant Arunkumar Singh. In this regard the learned Judge of the trial Court considered the investigation material in the light of the definitions of the words “Document” (Sec.29 I.P.C), “valuable security” (Sec.30 I.P.C) and “Forgery” (Sec.467 I.P.C) and the cited decision in Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh (Supra). Having done such exercise, the learned Judge held thus:
20. Considering the reported decisions cited by the parties, it is understandable that it is not the law that irrespective of the nature of crime and ignoring everything which is incriminating against any accused, Court must grant bail. On the contrary, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. This enunciation clearly makes out that bail can be refused, if the exceptions noted above are made out in the given case.
21. If the facts of the case on hand are carefully read in the light of the principles of bail laid down in the reported decisions cited by the parties, what is significant to be considered in this case is, (i) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (ii) character, behaviour, means, 16th position and standing of the accused; (iii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (iv) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
22. As noted above, there is a prima facie case against the Applicants of hatching a criminal conspiracy to tamper with and cause disappearance of the evidence with the help of false documents/forgery of valuable security. This act is punishable under Section 467 IPC for which the maximum punishment provided is ‘imprisonment for life’. No doubt, this offence is noncognizable, but non-bailable including certain associated offences.
23. Needless to state that it is only the evidence in the case which helps a Court of law to do justice to the parties in the case. The object of police investigation in a crime is to collect evidence on behalf of and in the trust for the State, with an avowed object of producing it before Court of law to get justice to the victim of crime. Yet, in the case in hand, the Applicants jointly tried eroding that very way of the justice to be done to the two innocent, who died in the accident at very young age. As such, the offence is serious.
24. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, it is evident that Applicants Vishal Agarwal and Arunkumar Singh are financially well placed. Witnesses like the private drivers, watchmen and domestic aid were working with them for a considerable time prior to the accident. Arunkumar Singh and Ashish Mittal are very close to each-other. The hospital staff who are witnesses and were associated with the Dr. Halnor to take the blood samples etc., are his subordinates. The student from whom the bribe money was recovered is junior to Dr. Halnor. All these witnesses including Dr. Halnor have been working under Dr. Taware. 16th The statement of the car driver of Applicant Vishal indicates that the grandfather of the CCL tried the money power to make him accept that he was driving the car at the relevant time. In the wake of above, if bail is granted to the Applicants even subjecting them to stringent conditions, there is every possibility of their tampering with the prosecution evidence using their money power and superiority dominance. This would ultimately thwart the course of justice in this case which was exposed to danger soon after the accident, because, as highlighted by the learned Special PP, there was unusual delay in the medical examination of the CCL and his two friends. Secondly, the belatedly recorded statement of Adi Shaikh also hints at that danger.
25. As a last-ditch, it is emphatically submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the Applicants. This is violation of their fundamental right under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, on this ground alone they are entitled for bail. To support this submissions, reliance is placed on following decisions. Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. vs. The State, rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police and anr.
Lalit Shyam Tekchandani vs. The State of Maharashtra and another
Ajit Kisan More vs. The State of Maharashtra Cril. Writ Petition No.3119 of 2025 Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another (2025) 5 SCC 799 Mihir Shah vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1288 Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2024) 8 SCC 254 Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha vs. Directorate Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zone Bail Appln. (ST) No. 2191 of 2022 Lalit Shyam Tekchandani vs. State of Maharashtra and 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 16th Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Mahesh Pandurang Naik vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC Online Bom Mohammad Aslam Mohammad Merchant vs. State of Bail App NO. 986 of 2025 Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 SCC Online SC 117 Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh (2025) SCC Online SC 25.[1] In reply, Mr Hiray pointed out the Arrest Forms of the Applicants and submitted that the procedure necessary to be followed before arrest of an accused, was observed before arresting the Applicants. Said fact is also stated in the Additional Affidavit, which is not controverted. He submits that, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, all the Applicants were aware of their act and role in the crime. The Applicants could not point out as to what prejudice has been caused to them on account of not informing the grounds of arrest in writing. Therefore, the said ground is not available for their release on bail. To agree with these submissions, the learned Special PP has relied upon the decision in Sri Darshan Etc. (Supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025:BHC-AS:50476. 25.[2] The reported decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Applicants approve such a release. Nevertheless, it cannot be forgotten that whether in the given case bail should be granted on not, is purely a discretion of the Court dealing with such question of bail. Like the accused in this crime, the victims, who died in the accident, were equal before the law and entitled for equal protection of the laws in view of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is trite that the former is a negative concept as it implies the absence of any privilege in favour of any person and the later is a positive concept as it expects a positive action from the State. In my considered view, safeguarding the justice to be done to the victims of the crime/their families is one of the facets 16th of Article 14. Therefore, if there are some mistakes or intentional/accidental procedural lapse on the part of the police, who investigated into the crime, the same cannot be allowed to control the very discretion of the Court as to the bail relief. Otherwise, it would cause a serious dent to the principle enshrined in the Constitution that “everyone is equal before the laws”, which is also available to the victim of crime. Needless to state that victims of crimes are not controlling the police procedure of arrest of the accused of the crime. Therefore, in cases like the one in hand, the victims cannot be made to suffer for the mistakes or lapse on the part of the police. 25.[3] In this context it would be apt to refer the decision of this Court in Mihir Shah (Supra). That reported case is similar to the case in hand in so far as the manner/cause of the accident and post accident disrespect exhibited towards the victims of the accident is concerned. While dealing with the question of releasing Mihir Shah on account of not communicating in writing the ground of his arrest thereby leading to violation of his right under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (earlier Section 50 Cr.P.C.) and taking an exception to the law in the field, the learned Single Judge of this Court, in paragraph 21 thereof, observed and held thus: “ For too long, the victims of crimes have been the forgotten persons in a criminal justice system. Crime is not a problem of the victim, since the victim did not create it. For considerable time, what the system offered to the victim was only sympathy, but with the introduction of discipline of “victimology” the concept has gained momentum and found its place in the existing Code of Criminal Procedure, when the victim was introduced by providing a definition in Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. Since the Indian Constitution through Article 39A cast an obligation upon the State to ensure 16th that the operation of legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity and in particular, in providing free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes, or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or any other disabilities. The principle enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution, to develop ‘humanism’ imaginatively, has the seeds of victimology in it. The Code of Criminal Procedure in its amended form as well as the new The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has conferred several rights on the victim including pre-trial rights i.e. of keeping the victim informed about the progress of investigation, filing of charge-sheets/closure reports and also a participation in the hearings to be conducted, including the Bail Applications. A specific provision in the new Sanhita in form of Section 123 has given right to the victim to present objections against the Bail ensuring the victim’s safety. The victim's consent and participation is made mandatory during plea negotiations. During the trial, victim is held entitled to legal assistance, either by appointing a private counsel or through a counsel to be provided through legal aid. Post trial, the victim is conferred with right to file Appeal against acquittal, challenge the conviction on lesser charge or inadequate sentence. In addition, the victims are also entitled to compensation from the State, irrespective of the accused conviction status and the scheme of compensation being implemented by the District Legal Services Authority. The moot question that exists today is whether the victims right to representation is sufficiently addressed in the adversarial nature of trials and as to how shall the Courts balance victim's participation with the accused’s right to a fair trial, including respecting the rights guaranteed to an accused being translated through the provisions of the Constitution or the Code of Criminal Procedure. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. 16th While we balance the rights of the accused which have been weighed on the parameters of life and liberty as enshrined in the constitution, we are of the firm view that the rights of the victim will also have to be tested on the same parameters of Article 21, which guarantees right to life and liberty and is equally applicable to the victim of the crime, before us.” 25.[4] In the wake of above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the Petitioners Mihir Shah (Supra) being aware of as to how the crime was committed while he was driving the car in question and his showing no sensitivity towards the victims of the crime, this Court declined to release him for the reason of not communicating the grounds of arrest observing that, “Despite the fact that we are conscious of the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and which we are bound to follow, we are making an exception in case of the present petitioners, as they were aware of their gruesome act ….”
26. In the case in hand, the Applicants and their co-accused were not only duty bound but also aware that they should support the police for proper investigation for collection of the evidence. Yet, they all including Dr. Halnor, Dr. Taware and Atul Ghatkambale became ready to tamper with and cause disappearance of the evidence for money. While doing so, all the Applicants were aware as to what they were doing is illegal and the serious consequences of the said act. As such, the Applicants are duty bound to explain as to what demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend has been caused to them on account of not informing in writing the grounds of their arrest prior to the arrest. However, no such prejudice is pointed out from the record. Therefore, and considering the decision in Sri Darshan Etc. (Supra), the submission that ‘the grounds of the arrest’ in writing were not communicated to the Applicants/accused before arresting them will not come to their rescue. 16th 26.[1] In the case of Mihir Shah (Supra), it is observed that, “Admittedly, the petitioners apprehending that their applications for being released on bail on account of seriousness of the offence may not receive positive consideration have chosen not to file the bail applications.” This observation coupled with the rights of the victims of crime and rejection of the said Petitions clearly indicate that, failure of the police to observe the legal procedures of arrest was not allowed to be a provision for release from jail.
27. Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Applicant Amar Gaikwad is suffering from obesity and diabetes. Therefore, he is in need of regular medical attention. However, no material is pointed out to show as to which specific and urgent medical treatment is required by Applicant Amar Gaikwad for his said medical condition. In fact, that medical ground is neither raised in his Bail Application nor the relevant medical papers are produced to support it. As observed in Sri Darshan (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case thus, the apprehension of the prosecution that the Applicant would tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence is well founded. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the Applicants, at least, till the examination of the material prosecution witnesses is over, who are vulnerable to pressurising or any other influencing tactics leading to their turning non-supportive or hostile to the prosecution case. This way, the rights of both the parties would remain intact. I am, therefore, persuaded to reject these Applications and reject the same, accordingly. 16th
29. The trial Court rejected the prayer for bail, at least, till the evidence of most of the material witnesses is recorded during the course of trial. The Applicants are behind bars for the last 18 months. Therefore, the trial Court to frame the charge as early as possible and hear the material prosecution witnesses at the earlier. In view thereof, liberty is granted to the Applicants to renew their prayer for bail before the trial Court after the material prosecution witnesses are over. If advised for, the Applicant – Amar Gaikwad may file an appropriate Application before the trial Court for necessary relief on account of his medical condition. If such an Application is filed, it shall be decided by the trial Court on its own merit.
30. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are limited to these Applications. The learned Judge of the Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
31. As a result, all the Interim Applications stand disposed of. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 16th HEERO JAYANI